1

In this chapter we will forward a number of theoretical consideration regarding a

growing body of literature closely related to this thesis; Critical Border Theory (CBT).

Despite the positive developments that this research project has achieved, there are

certain key areas that remain underdeveloped or problematic. Thus this chapter looks

to contextualise the new thinking space that this literature has enabled and how this

allows one to go beyond the presence/absence dichotomy discussed in the previous

chapter. Secondly, it draws out some of the contradictory or problematic tendencies in

this literature and discusses why they are flawed. Finally, in conclusion, it offers a

synthesis of some of the elements of CBT of particular use in honing the objectives of

this thesis.

This thesis bases itself on the proposition that globalisation, understood not as the

reality but a problematique, has led not to the disappearance of borders but to their

multiplication. In itself this proposition is far from new. Critical thinkers, in the post-

Cold War era, have long pointed, not to the presence/absence of borders, but to their

changing configurations. Etienne Balibar, for example, has affirmed that borders are no

longer at territorial boundaries and that they are to be found at the centre of politics1.

The importance of borders in political interactions and their reconfiguration in the

post-Cold War era is the central focus of CBT. In a recently published text establishing

the objectives for CBT, “Lines in the Sand? Towards an Agenda for Critical Border

Studies”, Noel Parker, Nick Vaughan-Williams et Al. maintain that borders are

“increasingly ephemeral and/or impalpable: electronic, non-visible, and located in

zones that defy straightforwardly territorial logic”2. Therefore, what we seek to add to

this literature is not a new declaration about how many borders there are, but rather

give a more complete contextualization of the process of multiplication of borders

within the globalisation problematique.

Critical border literature creates a precarious research space, mapping at times a

historically/spatially contingent understanding of borders, whilst at others falling back

1 BALIBAR, Etienne, “The Borders of Europe”, in CHEAH, P and ROBBINS, B (eds), Cosmopolitics: Thinking

and feeling beyond the nation, University of Minnesota Press, 1998, pp. 216-233. 2 PARKER, Noel, VAUGHAN-WILLIAMS, Nick et Al., “Lines in the Sand? Towards and Agenda for Critical

Border Studies”, Geopolitics, Vol 14, 2009, pp. 582-587, p. 583.

2

on easy explanations grounded in eternal truths, structures and inevitability. In the

Post-Cold War context theorists find it difficult to resist establishing new unchanging

and readily applicable categories to facilitate explanation. As we have argued in the

previous chapter, and as Didier Bigo and R.B. J Walker have also argued the general

move is familiar enough. “Boundaries are either here or they are not. State sovereignty

is either here or it is being replaced by something vaguely cosmopolitan”3. If a case is

made for diminishing state boundaries scholars often seek to identify new key actors

that define a new global reality.

Here the objective is not to create a new paradigm that correctly identifies the new

actors that have come on the scene since the mythological outdating of the State after

following the Cold War. If this were the case it would be possible to identify

readymade paradigms capable of establishing the new actors and their limits. In order

to define stable actors and explain the multiplication of borders one could adopt John

Lewis Gaddis’ integration vs. fragmentation paradigm4 or use the key actors described

by Francisco Javier Peñas. Peñas’ divides the world between a unified West emerging

from the Cold War, sharing a concept of civilization and capitalist economy and a

disperse and territorially imprecise Other consisting of those ideas and movements

differing from the objectives of the West.5

Despite sympathy with Peñas’ definition there is a need to move beyond structurally

rigid actors. It is inaccurate to identify a homogenous western block in a world of

emerging contested geographies where the “first world” and “third world” are not

territorially locked. In current global politics it is possible to identify homogenizing

(never homogenized) transversal fields of meaning grouped around accepted

problems, the globalization problematique being one of these, and the material

landscapes of power that these carve out. Identifying these theoretical/practical

assemblages allows a more complete interpretation of how and why bordering takes

3 BIGO, Didier and WALKER, R.B.J, “Political Sociology and the Problem of the International”, Millennium:

Journal of International Studies, 2007, Vol. 35, nº3, pp. 725-739, p 730. 4 GADDIS, John, “Towards the post-Cold War World”, Foreign Affairs, vol. 70, nº2, 1991, pp. 102-122.

5 PEÑAS, Francisco Javier, Occidentalización, fin de la Guerra fría y Relaciones Internacionales, tesis

doctoral, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, 1993, pp. 289-290. [Later published by Alianza editorial, 1997]

3

place. It is essential to move beyond actors and structures towards complex systems

(that are both theoretical and practical) of diverse elements that one may denominate

as “fields”, “dispositifs” or geographies. Defining new key actors or new key

structures, or for that matter claiming the continued validity of the Nation-State, only

reproduces that which is flawed in the discipline. As Yosef Lapid rightly argues it is just

as easy to argue in favour of the demise of the Nation-State, overtaken by new actors,

as it is to argue that it continues to be the cornerstone of political interactions. The

future of the State is not of upmost importance in this regard. On the other hand it is

important to analyse the complex global geography crisscrossed by the “sub”, the

“trans”, the “intra” and the “supra”6.

CBT has made important inroads in this regard. It has begun to shed light on the new

and unexpected variations in border practice and in doing so unravel some of the

complexity of the global geography of power. However, whilst it has becomes overly

technical focusing on complex and abstract ideas regarding biopolitics, biometrics and

sovereign power, it has not been able to situate this process within a contingent

moment or problematique that would allow it to resist falling back on stable truths and

structures. Following on from the ontology established in the first chapter it is evident

that there is never necessity or inevitability in power relations, including bordering and

sovereignty. Beyond contingency there is nothing. In the following section this idea will

be flesh out drawing on CBT before going into more in-depth criticism in the following

section.

In agreement with Parker and Vaughan-Williams et Al., it is time that the discipline

revisited the “idea of border in a very general sense, together with a host of cognates:

territory, space, inside/outside, network, region, periphery, margins, limes, threshold

and so on”7. This thesis relates closely to this project and thus is able to situate itself

within CBT literature. Parker and Vaughan-Williams et Al. identify three axes of

enquiry; epistemology, ontology and spatiality, as well as identifying a number of

6 LAPID, Yosef, “Rethinking the “International”: IBO Clues for Post-Westphalian Mazes”, in ALBERT,

Mathias, JACOBSON, David and LAPID, Yosef (eds), Identities, Borders, Orders: Rethinking International Relations Theory, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 2001, p 23. 7 PARKER and VAUGHAN-WILLIAMS, “Lines in the Sand?”, Op. cit., p 583.

4

research questions8. This thesis contributes to the aim of establishing new border

ontologies. This axis of investigation is the most underdeveloped. Parker and Vaughan-

Williams et Al. propose only two vague suggestions. Firstly that borders may be

foundational acts and secondly that one may investigate new ontological registers to

describe their changing and indeterminate relations9. This chapter forwards the idea

that border ontology is only possible in the context of a (global) landscape of meaning

and relationships; beyond this borders have no meaning.

10

11

-

- 12

8 Ibid, p 583.

9 Ibid, p 585.

10 Ibid, p 586.

11 LAPID, Identities, Borders, Orders, Op. cit., p 2.

12- -

-

5

13

14

15

16

13

--

14

- 15

VAUGHAN-WILLIAMS, Nick, Border Politics: The Limits of Sovereign Power, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 2009, p 115. 16

VAUGHAN-WILLIAMS, Nick, “The UK Border Security Continuum: virtual biopolitics and the simulation of the sovereign ban”, Environment and Planning D, Volume 28, 2010, pp. 1071-1083, p 1072.

6

17

- 18 -

Parker rightly argues that there is a need for ontology of the global that shows how an

unstable variety of players can coexist and interact in a common field19. Whilst Parker’s

analysis appears confusing at times it does allow one to draw conclusions about how

this ontology may work. Deleuze argues that groups, sets and series exist but these are

completely constituted by difference20. Deleuze states “we wish… to think difference

in itself, and the relation of the different to the different independent of the forms of

representation which lead back to the same”21. He means to think entities as

compositions of multiplicities that can only be understand in movement. He inverts the

synthesis of objects as stable groupings in order to observe them as pure multiplicity.

We do not start with the synthesised object but rather track the process of synthesis

and describe how assemblages are formed. Objects have no stable meaning rather

they are in a constant process of acquiring and redefining meaning. Parker states that

an important part of this is to identify how representations of difference have been

17

RAJARAM, Prem Kumar, “Dystopic geographies of empire” in (eds) BISWAS, S. and NAIR, S., International Relations and States of Exception: Margins, Peripheries, and Excluded Bodies, Routledge, Oxon, 2010, pp. 71-94, p 88. 18

PARKER, Noel, “From Borders to Margins: A Deleuzian ontology for identities in the Post-International Environment”, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 2009, p. 17-39. 19

Ibid, p 17. 20

Ibid, p.20. 21

Ibid, p 21.

7

implanted and block the way to an unbridled devenir of identities22. The identity of

such entities can only be realised in terms of their matching or not matching some

principle for the set (enunciation)23. These lines of enunciation create lines of

resonance around which material realities form and in turn alter the lines of

enunciation.

Parker demonstrates the link between this thought and the dynamic proposition of

Spinoza. For Spinoza each entity is the outcome of the movement of parts within it and

of its movement in respect to other bodies. That is to so that bodies and souls are

determined not by fixed organs or form; but by effects of internal or external

movement24. This leads back to the processual relationships that were discussed

earlier. Identities do not constitute themselves through the rejection of an external

other rather by how they internalize exteriority, how they conjugate a multiplicity.

Parker argues that entities become autonomous, and become part of a set solely in

alignment with each other25. Entities acquire meaning in this process of alignment.

Parker concludes that this makes identities conceivable on the basis of the particular

entities themselves26. There is a slight problem with the last two references to Parker.

Entities should never be treated as autonomous and are not conceivable by

themselves. Entities are conceivable by the processes of interiorization and as part of a

greater landscape that they form a part of. Parker returns to this when he states that

in this ontology identities are determined in a world populated by undifferentiated and

yet distinct, entities that differentiate themselves alongside others27. The boundaries,

or what Parker denominates as margins, are indeterminate and are determined by the

interactions of the entities28. In conclusion, the identity of each entity may be

determined just as fully from its relations with others as by that which goes on “inside”

it29.

22

Ibid, 21. 23

Ibid, p 22. 24

Ibid, p 27. 25

Ibid, p 22. 26

Ibid, p 23. 27

Ibid, 25-26. 28

Ibid, p 26. 29

Ibid, p 30.

8

Finally, Parker proposes how this ontology may be used in a way that is similar to

geophilosophy. He suggests that it may lead to a “plan de composition” in which

theorists are able to map the assemblage of entities associating with each other. This

plots the interactions that are “within” entities and become sufficiently stable to

constitute entities, and interactions that are “between” entities that are supported by

stable patterns (albeit temporarily) underpinning their separate but interrelated

identities30. In the context of this thesis what is necessary is an analysis of the

processes “between” entities that have allowed for the establishment of relatively

predictable relationships in the post-Cold War era.

-

31

32

33

Thus, whilst this thesis argues that after the end of the Cold-War relations of powers

stabilised around the globalisation paradigm, Bigo similarly argues that there is a

process of indifferentialisation between security problems inside and outside the state.

30

Ibid, p 27. 31

BIGO, Didier, “Globalized (in)security: the field and the Ban-opticon”, Illiberal Practices of Liberal Regimes, The (in)security games, L’Harmattan, Paris, 2006. 32

BIGO and WALKER, “Political Sociology”, Op. cit., p 732. 33

Ibid, p 733.

9

Drawing on the argument of this thesis it is possible to link this occurrence to the

globalisation problematique. The network of (in)security that Bigo draws attention to is

largely composed of what has been defined here as the theoretical problems posed by

globalisation. Bigo demonstrates how a link has been established between diverse and

seemingly extremely different security threats such as terrorism, transnational

organized crime, drugs and immigration. Especially since 9/11 global radical Islam has

also become associated with these same threats34. These threats are not to be

considered as the objective reality rather as the focusing of the stakes of security

around certain problems associated with globalisation. As Bigo affirms “The

interpenetration of internal and external security is in no sense a reflection of an

increase of threats in the contemporary epoch”35.

The globalisation problematique begins to appear in the search for a new paradigm at

the end of the Cold War. Lacking the stable elements of the Cold War a panic sets in

and academics rush to establish where the threats will be coming from. Whilst not fully

exploring the importance of this in bordering, a number of authors, in addition to Bigo,

touch upon this. Mathias Albert and Lothar Brock state that the idea of fragmentation

is central in the definition of globalisation as a security qua survival problem36. This

new paradigm reads the new situation within the old framework of International

Relations. A new binary split between contrasting systems emerge, as Ronnie Lipshutz

suggests, the split between democracy and totalitarianism is replaced by authorized

and forbidden identities, permitted order and feared disorder37. In this new context of

enmity the supposedly inevitable process of globalisation opens the ordered world to

“all sorts of pernicious, malevolent and immoral forces, beliefs, and disorderly

34

BIGO, Didier, “The Mobius Ribbon of External Security(ies)” in ALBERT, Mathias, JACOBSON, David and LAPID, Yosef (eds), Identities, Borders, Orders: Rethinking International Relations Theory, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 2001, pp. 91-116, p 108-109. 35

Ibid, p 111. 36

ALBERT, Mathias and BROCK, Lothar, “What keeps Westphalia together? Normative Differentiation in the Modern System of States?”, in ALBERT, Mathias, JACOBSON, David and LAPID, Yosef (eds), Identities, Borders, Orders: Rethinking International Relations Theory, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 2001, pp. 29-50, p 32. 37

LIPSCHUTZ, Ronnie “(B)orders and (Dis)orders: The Role of Moral Authority in Global Politics”, in ALBERT, Mathias, JACOBSON, David and LAPID, Yosef (eds), Identities, Borders, Orders: Rethinking International Relations Theory, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 2001, pp. 73-90, p 75.

10

tendencies”38. Globalisation becomes the buzz word grouping together everything and

anything from social and economic crises to challenges to sovereignty, identity and

borders. It is necessary to reemphasise that “the facts are constructed (or not) as

problems by these specific actors39 and do not reflect the needs of the State in this

new context. According to Bigo the globalisation problematique means that police

officers, customs officers, gendarmes, intelligence agencies and the army all consider

themselves to share the same enemies. These common enemies are seen to spread

insecurity so much that security necessarily must expand beyond traditional limits.40.

This begins to explain the changing border practices detailed by CBT theorists. Lipshutz

underlines two key tactics that are used to counter the globalisation problematique.

The first tactic he denominates as “democratization and enlargement”, a strategy that

consists of a mission to expand the boundaries of the “good world” through the

exportation of Western liberal democracy. It is commonly assumed that the

prevalence of this system makes the world a safer place. The second contradictory

tactic is that of disciplinary deterrence, or the way to deal with those rebel elements

that cannot be converted41. Through this second strategy it is possible to explain the

pre-emptive action taken against rebellious states, organised crime, terrorists, human

traffickers, border smuggles or other individuals such as immigrants that do not

respect the sanctity of State boundaries42.

Whilst CBT offer a great number of theoretical innovations that are extremely useful,

as we have begun to discuss above, it is important to highlight some of its key

deficiencies. The main line of criticism developed here is that it often does not take the

contingency and the temporality of its propositions sufficiently into account. It is

possible to follow at least four main lines of criticisms. Firstly, it sometimes

unknowingly accepts a linear process towards globalisation. This contrasts with our

proposal that globalisation should never be understood as a process but rather as a

configuration or understanding that orders practice. Secondly, it often assumes that

38

Ibid, p 75. 39

BIGO, “Mobius Ribbon”, Op. cit., p 93. 40

Ibid, p 94. 41

LIPSCHUTZ, “(B)orders and (Dis)orders”, Op. cit., p 84. 42

BIGO, “Mobius Ribbon”, Op. cit., p 92-93.

11

the multiplication of borders is the effect of a stable cause, in particular the need to

stabilise identity against an Other. Thirdly, it situates these new practices as a

reconfiguration of what Campbell and Shapiro have called “transcendence without

presence”, that is to say that border practice represents “the way that it is” in another

form. Finally, there is a tendency to apply or rely solely on a particular author from

other disciplines. Such a practice should be approached with extreme caution. Against

these insufficiencies this chapter promotes a stress on contingency; this is to say the

irreducibility of the multiplication of borders to a cause or causes. It is rather the

product of a complex geography composed of heterogeneous and conflicting spaces.

This proposal will be briefly introduced to conclude this chapter.

I

The first critique deals with a line of explanation that was also present in the second

chapter. This is the use of the word globalisation to explain all that is difficult to

comprehend in global politics. Globalisation should not be reduced to a definable

process that can be located in time and space. This of course is not to say that there

are not processes and transversal effects that constantly cross state boundaries rather

that these, firstly, are not entirely new and, secondly, that they do not form the part of

a singular process. Globalisation cannot be considered as a necessary direction that

the world is taking. It is important to address the heterogeneity of processes rather

than a singular process of globalisation. Related to the last point, it is inadequate to

talk about how globalisation effects the state and causes novel border practices.

Globalisation cannot be used to refer to everything and anything that effects the State

in the post-Cold War era.

There is a fine line between analysing changing practices and becoming caught up in a

sensationalistic discourse about globalisation. Albert and Brock for example walk this

tightrope and on occasions are overcome by an overemphasis of an overwhelming

process. As they state, “The world seems to be moving from complex interdependence

to cyberspace, from old-fashioned multinationals producing material goods that can be

controlled on borders to new strategic alliance that trade not goods but expectations

12

and information” 43. One must question how accurate a description this is of the global

reality or whether this captures only a minute part of how human beings interact

globally. Later in the text they again make the brash statement that “the social

construct of territorial congruency between nation, state, society and economy

crumbles. As this construct formed the very core of the modern territorial system, this

system itself is being transformed”44. This sensationalistic discourse of change is

always in danger of being blind to the underlying continuities and changes moving in

adverse directions.

This becomes evident in their interpretation of new forms of bordering as they are

explained to be simple movements to gain lost ground or to recreate actors mirroring

the State. For example they claim that “the heterogeneous nation-state meets a

militant and at times brutal tribalism”45 or that the trend towards the debordering of

societies and economies leads to counter moves directed at regaining lost territorial

congruency46. It is necessary to resituate this desperation back within the contingent

construction of threats and of solutions.

Mansbach and Wilmer on the other hand seek to offer political solutions in a new

globalised context and in doing so they accept the globalisation problematique as the

reality of global politics. They take for granted that state authority has been eroded

and that new authority structures are equally as important. They then predict what

political action and security will be like in this new context stating that there could be a

restructuring of the state, a restructuring of the global system and interstate

institutions or a drop into chaos47. The problem with this text as is the case with many

other texts in the “Identity, Order, Borders” compilation is that it takes for granted

that there was once upon a time a Westphalian system that is now in crisis. They

depict an all too easy shift from a Westphalian problematique to a globalisation

43

ALBERT and BROCK, “What keeps Westphalia”, Op. cit., p 30. 44

Ibid, p 37. 45

Ibid, p 30. 46

Ibid, p 38. 47

MANSBACH, Richard and WILMIR, Franke, “War, violence and the Westphalian State System as a Moral Community” in ALBERT, Mathias, JACOBSON, David and LAPID, Yosef (eds), Identities, Borders, Orders: Rethinking International Relations Theory, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 2001, pp. 51-72, p 65.

13

problematique. Mansbach and Wilmar argue that “the Westphalian order was both

structure and agent through which norms delimiting legitimate and illegitimate

violence internally and were constructed and acted on for several hundred years”48.

This in itself is a gross generalisation as it is quite easy to argue that the Westphalian

system has never been homogenously put in place and has coexisted with imperialism

and colonialism. It is impossible to consistently argue, as Mansbach and Wilmer

attempt to do, that Westphalian states are only now being undermined by new or

reformulated identities49 rather that processes of homogenisation have always been

undermined by processes of differentiation.

Furthermore globalisation should never be reduced to being the cause and motor of

current phenomenon. Wendy Brown often falls into this caricature of globalisation.

For example she states that:

“Globalization features a host of related tensions between global networks and

local nationalism, virtual power and physical power, private appropriation and

open sourcing, secrecy and transparency, territorialisation and

deterritorialization. It also features tensions between national interests and the

global market, hence between the nation and the state and between the security

of the subject and the movements of capital”50.

In this statement globalisation represents an ominous anything and everything that is

occurring at this moment. Brown’s analysis is compatible with the argumentation

forwarded in this chapter if globalisation is not reduced to a process that is occurring.

For example, when she argues that the danger posed by immigration is

overdetermined by the economic, political, security and cultural effects of

globalisation51. If this sentence is reformulated to apply that a connection is

established between the illegal immigrant and a series of problems that have been

established at the centre of the IR debate in the post-Cold War it becomes coherent.

48

Ibid, p 52. 49

Ibid, p 53. 50

BROWN, Wendy, Walled States, Waning Sovereignty, Zone Books, New York, 2010, p 8. 51

Ibid, p 117.

14

Globalisation, as is done by Brown, is often explained as a force influencing actors.

Albert and Brock for example state that “under the pressure of globalization, state and

nation seem to be moving together rather than apart”52. Similarly, Chris Brown

predicts future configurations of world politics basing them on the supposed changes

provoked by the forces of globalisation. He adopts Benjamin Barber’s paradigm of

“Jihad vs. McWorld” in which uniformisation caused by globalisation is sporadically

resisted by irrational outbursts53. It seems that many authors assume that

“globalization can be looked at as a new condition under which the old stories about

the meaning of belonging to a nation have to be retold differently”54 or that

globalisation challenges the assumptions we had about the discipline55. Here however

we do not believe that globalisation is what has provoked us to rethink bordering. The

philosophical arguments underlying this rethinking were already well established

before the end of the Cold-War.

II

Closely related to this first point is the second critique, the refutation that current

bordering processes are the fruit of some kind of need. This need is generally

explained in two ways. On one hand as the need of the sovereign state to protect itself

against penetration caused by globalisation or on the other hand as the need to

exclude some in order to create a sense of community. Again, we reiterate the

requirement of seeing current practice not as necessary but rather grounded in a

contingent context of socially constructed answers to imaginary questions.

-

52

ALBERT and BROCK, “What keeps Westphalia”, Op. cit., p 31. 53

BROWN, Chris, “Borders and Identity in International Political Theory” in ALBERT, Mathias, JACOBSON, David and LAPID, Yosef (eds), Identities, Borders, Orders: Rethinking International Relations Theory, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 2001, pp. 117-136, p 132. 54

ALBERT and BROCK, “What keeps Westphalia”, Op. cit., p 46. 55

BROWN, “Borders and Identity”, Op. cit., p 119.

15

56 -

57

58

-

59

56

BROWN, Walled States, Op. cit., p 107. 57

Ibid, p 109. 58

DELEUZE, Gilles and GUATTARI, Félix, Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, Continuum, London, 2004. 59

BIGO and WALKER, “Political Sociology”, Op. cit., p 734.

16

60

61 -

-

62 -

63

64

65

66

60

RAJARAM, “Locating Political Space”, Op. cit., p 266. 61

SALTER, “At the threshold”, Op. cit., p 42. 62

--

63

SALTER, Mark, “The Global Visa Regime and the Political Technologies of the International Self: Borders, Bodies, Biopolitics”, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, Volume 31, 2006, pp 167-189. 64

--

65-

66

17

67

68

69

70

-

71

67

68

-

69

70

71

--

18

72

73

-

74

75

We have already alluded to the third point in the last section. As there is no necessity

of bordering it may be argued that there is no transcendental truth about sovereignty

which current bordering is the reflection of. Much CBT theory bases its judgment on

“transcendence without presence” whilst here there is a tendency towards a theory of

presence without transcendence. The statements of some authors are often grounded

in assumptions about a transcendental human nature and sovereign logic based on

exclusion. This allows them to argue that current bordering is the reconfiguration of

this eternal process in another context. Again it is essential to reject these

presumptions and ground our understandings in processual ontologies and

contingency.

72

73

74

75

19

76

77

76

77

BROWN, Wendy, Walled states, Op. cit., p 123.

20

- -

78

We believe that it is not possible to simply reapply this logic to new border practices.

Vaughan-Williams relies heavily on Giorgio Agamben’s philosophy in order to provide

theoretical innovation in his book “Border Politics”. Agamben argues that the originary

separation in Ancient Greek thought between zoé (the biological fact of living) and bios

(politically qualified life) has become increasingly indistinguishable in modern society79.

Sovereign power generates a confused state where zoé can be taken as bios and vice

versa. The individual in this confused state is exposed as ‘bare life’ to be categorized by

the whim of sovereign decision, that is to say that the inclusion/exclusion is no longer

so clear cut and has become increasingly arbirtary80. In this blurred state or ‘state of

exception’, the sovereign power is necessary as a law founding decision of inclusion

and exclusion to fill the legal vacuum. Agamben, as has already stated, implies that the

78

79

VAUGHAN-WILLIAMS, Border politics, op. cit., p 97. 80

Ibid, p 103.

21

existence of citizenship and political institutions depends on a discriminatory law

founding violence81. ‘Bare life’ is the founding element which is simultaneously

included and excluded in the system, creating the appearance of unity, yet relying on

the excluded other to give it meaning. The idea that the implementation of law is a

constant bordering decision is the key element which Vaughan-Williams discusses.

Vaughan-Williams follows Agamben’s thought to create a new concept regarding the

bordering process: the ‘generalised biopolitical border’. This term implies that

bordering is a process of inclusion and exclusion of ‘bare life’ in the political order. The

sovereign decision is constantly at work to create reason, in a zone of indistinction or

‘camp’ that is not necessarily restricted to any particular territory82. As the sovereign

decision is not restricted territorially, Vaughan-Williams argues that camps of

exception exist both inside and outside the traditional state83. Therefore, the

‘generalised biopolitical border’ refers to a sort of global archipelago, where sovereign

power produces ‘bare life’ through decisions of inclusion and exclusion on a global

scale84. These bordering practices occur at different sites that may come in the form of

offshore borders that stop unwanted individuals, e-bordering or practices that exclude

individuals inside particular Nation-States. To demonstrate his thesis Vaughan-Williams

uses an example that demonstrates how sovereign power secures the political

community by raising interior biopolitical borders against perceived dangers. The

production of Jean Charles De Menezes as ‘bare life’ through his profiling and shooting

in London’s tube as a perceived terrorist threat serves as a clear illustration85.

Vaughan-Williams argues that the strength of understanding bordering as a

‘generalized biopolitical border’ is that it undoes the clear distinction between

domestic and international political ordering. The political order is not a stable reality

and is in constant reproduction through the suspension of law in the state of

81

Ibid, p 99. 82

Ibid, p 112. 83

Ibid, p. 116. 84

Ibid, p. 116. 85

Ibid, p. 130.

22

exception86. The relationship between border and subject is blurred as borders and

citizens are continually being defined through the categorization of ‘bare life’87. As a

result the logic of a territorial separation between friend and enemy is thrown into

disarray88. Depending on sovereign decision, friend can be turned instantly into enemy

or vice versa. The argumentation followed by Vaughan-Williams is interesting in the

sense that it brings our attention to certain new phenomenon. However, it would be

more useful to contextualize this beyond a logic of sovereignty, even if this is a logic of

sovereignty updated to modern circumstances.

IV

Leading from the critique of Vaughan-Williams’ use of transcendence without

presence borrowed form Agamben it is necessary to question the usefulness of

application as has already been done in earlier chapters. By no means is Vaughan-

Williams the only culprit in this regard. Parker is also guilty of stating “Deleuze teaches

us”89 which, had he heard it, would probably have given Deleuze a heart attack after

his lifelong crusade against the figures of the Priest and the Psychoanalyst. In the case

of Vaughan-Williams, he readily accepts Agamben’s analysis and simply applies it to

the bordering process. In this regard one should always be skeptical of the worth of

following or applying an idea to our subject matter, the use of thinkers as a toolbox or

‘IKEA of ideas’ to combine and mix in different combinations hampers critical analysis

as it restricts our thinking90. There is no specific combination of ideas which will lead to

a revelation of solutions for the analytical problems faced. Ideas emerge in a certain

context which their expropriation and reapplication distorts. Application in a restrictive

area such as International Relations distorts and restricts the ability for critical thought.

For example, in the case of Agamben effective solutions can be found to problems

which he has developed in his own work. However, in adopting these solutions

thought is restricted to believing that his interpretation of “bare life” is correct.

86

Ibid, p. 132. 87

Ibid, p. 134. 88

Ibid, p. 135. 89

PARKER, “From Borders to Margins”, Op. cit., p. 23. 90

PARDO, José Luis, “Introducción”, in Gilles Deleuze, Dos regímenes de locos: textos y entrevistas (1975-1995), Pre-textos, Valencia, 2007, p 15.

23

Vaughan-Williams, in following Agamben, limits his analysis by avoiding cultural,

economic and linguistic bordering. He explicitly states that the main aim of his work is

to shift analysis of borders from geopolitics to biopolitics91. Yet, we may interpret this

as the promotion of an Agambenean methodology rather than biopolitics per se. This

becomes evident in the third chapter which seemingly traces the evolution of

biopolitical thought in order to concluding that Agamben offers the most suited

perspective to explain bordering process.

Towards a new geography of the International: Building on CBT

After our analysis of the shortcomings of CBT it is useful to try to draw out in more

detail the lines of encounter that are useful in conjunction with our earlier proposals.

This will help to fine tune analysis during the rest of the thesis. There is a need to

emphasize a heterogeneous mapping of border practices. In order to do so one must

briefly discuss how borders should be defined seeking to build on how they are

explained in CBT. In relation to this widened scope of borders we will underline the

need to be particularly aware of the heterogeneous and complex societal relationships

at stake. A number of problematic assumptions have impeded a social sensitive,

approach of CBT and to combat this we return to a quote cited in the first chapter:

“The ideal book should exhibit everything on a plane of exteriority, on a single page, a

flat surface: events lived, historic determinations, concepts thought, individuals,

groups and social formations”92. To adequately understand bordering in the post-Cold

War era we firstly need to put forward a new geography of the international. We need

to map a vast array of factors that create a common ground in this period. These

factors are often grounded in the reconfiguration of old concepts that are used to

resolve new circumstances.

It is necessary in the context of this new geography to develop a complex

understanding of borders. There is no nature of borders or sovereignty as these are

multifaceted terms that may be applied to differing phenomena. As a result

pinpointing what a border is, and how it is, may include contradictory configurations.

91

VAUGHAN-WILLIAMS, Border Politics, Op. cit., p.65. 92

DELEUZE, Gilles and GUATTARI, Félix, Rizoma: Introducción, Pre-textos, Valencia, 1977, p 21.

24

We make the open proposal that borders are entities that are constituted by

micropolitical phenomena to try and accommodate this problem. Border meaning is

contingent and generated by a plurality of factors. Wendy Brown in relating to walls

similarly argues that they may be infused by extremely different meanings, yet

independently they mean nothing at all93.

Borders are never the execution of a stable logic. Their meaning is continually

interrupted and reconfigured. There is no single logic of sovereignty or borders.

Nevertheless, this does not mean that trying to map border practices is irrelevant. One

may still find much use in the conceptualisation of individual understandings and how

they punctually influence human relations. Borders are multifaceted conceptual

imaginaries. This suggests that they may be understood in contradictory ways and not

simply be reduced to a point of exclusion. This contradicts many CBT works we have

analyzed which imply that the border marks the defining limit of sovereign power or

the place of the inclusion/exclusion of “bare life” in the political system94. We argue

that this formulation provides a limited understanding of one possible interpretation

of borders. It does not sufficiently exhaust the totality of a greater appreciation. In

contrast here we will emphasise the border's heterogeneity. They may represent a

point of exclusion but also one of encounter and hybridisation.

The usage of the term is infused with a variety of different meanings particularly in

relation to Global Politics. Michele Acuto proposes that borders may exist as walls, as

permeable ideal lines and as borderlands95. These definitions are of great use here.

Here we will adopt these terms and slightly modify them to suggest that borders may

be considered in at least three configurations; boundaries, imaginary borderlines and

borderlands. Boundaries refer to solid events and physical infrastructure that impede

93

BROWN, Wendy, Walled States, Op.cit., p 74. 94

Such a conception is forwarded by many of the contributors in EDKINS, Jenny, PIN-FAT, Véronique and SHAPIRO, Michael, Sovereign Lives: Power in Global Politics, Routledge, New York, 2004 and in RAJARAM, Prem Kumar and GRUNDY-WARR, Carl, “The irregular migrant as Homo Sacer: Migration and Detention in Australia, Malaysia and Thailand”, International Migration, Volume 42, nº1, 2004, pp. 33-64 and SALTER, Michael, “When the exception becomes the rule: borders, sovereignty and citizenship”, Citizenship Studies, Volume 12, nº4, 2008, pp. 365-380. 95

ACUTO, Michele, “Edges of Conflict: A Three-Fold Conceptualization of National Borders”, Borderlands, Volume 7, nº 1, 2008, http://www.borderlands.net.au/issues/vol7no1.html (Accessed 30/04/2011).

25

the free movement, association and socialisation of individuals. Imaginary borderlines

reflect historical representation and references. They are based on dominant

ideologies and influence the way in which individuals perform border experiences.

Borderlands are zones of indistinction where constant interaction and confusion

between dominant ideologies takes place. These three categorizations are imperfect

and in turn extremely broad. It is possible to distil them even further and in multiple

different ways96.

The way in which these borders are generated and enacted are complex and

dependent on societal, economic or political forces and processes of identification

rather than a simple logic of sovereignty. We agree with Hannah Arendt when she

states “The world in which we are born, would not exist without the human activity

that produced it”97 and Halit Mustafa Tagma when he affirms that “historically and

theoretically, the articulation of the “we” is at the core of the problem... a subject's

body (race, religion, national background, and ideology, etc.) that all come in to play at

ground level”98. These elements have not been entirely forgotten by CBT authors yet

they do not have the central role we believe they deserve. We agree with Salter99 and

Vaughan-Williams100 when they suggest that border experiences are heterogeneous

and may be simultaneously reflect absent and present, strong and weak borders.

There have been a number of socially sensitive works but without full

contextualization101.

96

For example, one may adopt Henri Gobard's terminology in L'aliénation linguistique. According to Gobard alienation may occur at a vernacular, vehicular, referential and mythical level. DELEUZE, Gilles, Dos regímenes de locos: textos y entrevistas (1975-1995), Pre-textos, Valencia, 2007, p 77. 97

98

- 99

SALTER, “At the threshold of security”, Op. cit. 100

VAUGHAN-WILLIAMS, “The UK Border Security Continuum”, Op. cit. 101

--

26

102

103

104

Bigo manages to create a similar map by encapsulating the security debate in the post-

Cold War era as focusing on certain attractors that have defined the debate and thus

dictated that which is considered important in theory and in practice. There are

heterogeneous molecular forms of interpretation whilst these heterogeneous

molecular speculations group around homogenising molecular attractor’s based on

102

LAPID, “Introduction: Identities, Borders” Op. cit., p 17-18. 103

WALKER, R.B.J., “Lines of Insecurity: International, Imperial, Exceptional”, Security Dialogue, Vol. 37, nº1, 2006,pp. 65-82, p 75. 104

ALBERT, Mathias and KRATCHOVIL, Friedrich, “Conclusion”, in ALBERT, Mathias, JACOBSON, David and LAPID, Yosef (eds), Identities, Borders, Orders: Rethinking International Relations Theory, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 2001, pp. 275-292, p 289

27

accepted security problems. Bigo uses the term “Field Studies”, inspired by Pierre

Bourdieu, to describe this mapping. He argues that this approach allows us to plot a

“variety of practices and emerging configurations of the agents systems of disposition

in relation to their trajectories and positions”105.

This allows Bigo to, as discussed earlier, trace “a new topology of security, new graphs

and charts of the relationship between the different forms of security and insecurity”

in which he concludes that in practice it is now impossible to oppose national and state

security106. He plots how there is a merging rationality, based on a series of common

threat attractors joining the two security fields based around the “problems” of

terrorism, drugs, crime and immigration107. In order to demonstrate this he maps a

process of change over the last 20 years amongst the comprehension of the police

force that has moved from internal security to police beyond borders108.

Bigo strongly grounds this explanation in contingency stating that these problems are

constructed and do not necessarily reflect the security “needs”. He rather links it to a

moment in which “apocalyptic discourses on the end of bipolarity reactivate these

fearful diagrams of thought, which arise from the anguish about generalized

destruction (annihilation of populations by wars of religion or fears of atomic threats

or destruction by internal subversion)”109. Here Bigo approaches our argument that

the theory/practice of globalisation has created a landscape in which contemporary

border practice makes sense.

This chapter has served a number of purposes. It has introduced a new literature to

which this thesis hopes to add. In doing so it has drawn out some of the common lines

of argument expressed by these authors. Some of these are extremely relevant and

useful to our objectives. On the other hand, much of the literature is marred by

awkward assumptions that distance explanation from contingency and posit it back in

the realm of stable truths, whether this truth is grounded in a globalisation process or

105

BIGO, Mobius Ribbon, Op. cit., p 98. 106

Ibid, p 95. 107

Ibid, p 100. 108

Ibid, p 103. 109

Ibid, p 114.

28

a hidden logic of sovereignty. To counter these misconceptions we have begun to

formulate a more adequate explanation of the multiplication of borders by relating it

to a molar molecular relationship. The practice/theory of borders is extremely diverse

and contradictory. However practice/theory tends to gravitate towards molar points of

resonance. In the context of the post-Cold War there is gravitation towards the

globalisation problematique as a defining problem. In the following chapters we will

seek to plot the movement towards this new centre of analysis via the mutation of,

rather than the rupture with, various elements of International Theory. This process

occurs as IR theory tries to come to grips with the “new” context of the post-Cold War

era.

Bibliography

ACUTO, Michele, “Edges of Conflict: A Three-Fold Conceptualization of National

Borders”, Borderlands, Volume 7, nº 1, 2008,

http://www.borderlands.net.au/issues/vol7no1.html (Accessed 30/04/2011).

AGAMBEN, Giorgio, “Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life”, Stanford University

Press, Stanford, 1998.

-

ALBERT, Mathias and KRATCHOVIL, Friedrich, “Conclusion”, in ALBERT, Mathias,

JACOBSON, David and LAPID, Yosef (eds), Identities, Borders, Orders: Rethinking

International Relations Theory, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 2001, pp.

275-292.

ARENDT, Hannah, The Human Condition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1998

[1958].

29

-

BALIBAR, Etienne, “The Borders of Europe”, in CHEAH, P and ROBBINS, B (eds),

Cosmopolitics: Thinking and feeling beyond the nation, University of Minnesota Press,

1998.

BIGO, Didier and WALKER, R.B.J, “Political Sociology and the Problem of the

International”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 2007, Vol. 35, nº3, pp.

725-739.

-

-

-

DECHA, Tangseefa, “Imperceptible naked lives: Constructing a theoretical space to

account for non-statist subjectivities” in (eds) BISWAS, S. and NAIR, S., International

Relations and States of Exception: Margins, Peripheries, and Excluded Bodies,

Routledge, Oxon, 2010, pp. 116-139.

30

-

-

- -

-

-

GADDIS, John, “Towards the post-Cold War World”, Foreign Affairs, vol. 70, nº2, 1991,

pp. 102-122.

-

, Vol 2, 2008, pp. 165-183.

LAPID, Yosef, “Rethinking the “International”: IBO Clues for Post-Westphalian Mazes”,

in ALBERT, Mathias, JACOBSON, David and LAPID, Yosef (eds), Identities, Borders,

Orders: Rethinking International Relations Theory, University of Minnesota Press,

Minneapolis, 2001.

LASK, Tomke, “Grenze/Frontière: le sense de la frontière”, Quaderni, nº27, 1995, pp.

65-78.

31

-

-

- -

-

PARKER, Noel, VAUGHAN-WILLIAMS, Nick et Al., “Lines in the Sand? Towards and

Agenda for Critical Border Studies”, Geopolitics, Vol 14, 2009, pp. 582-587.

PEÑAS, Francisco Javier, Occidentalización, fin de la Guerra fría y Relaciones

Internacionales, tesis doctoral, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, 1993, pp.

289-290. [Later published by Alianza editorial, 1997].

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

32

SALTER, Mark, “The Global Visa Regime and the Political Technologies of the

International Self: Borders, Bodies, Biopolitics”, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political,

Volume 31, 2006, pp 167-189.

SALTER, Michael, “When the exception becomes the rule: borders, sovereignty and

citizenship”, Citizenship Studies, Volume 12, nº4, 2008, pp. 365-380.

SALTER; Mark, “At the threshold of security: a theory of international borders” in (eds)

ZUREIK, E., and SALTER, M., Global Surveillance and Policing: Borders, security, identity,

Willan Publishing, Cullompton, 2005, pp. 36-50, p 39.

TAGMA, Halit Mustafa, “Biopower as a supplement to sovereign power: Prison camps,

war, and the production of excluded bodies” in (eds) BISWAS, S. and NAIR, S.,

International Relations and States of Exception: Margins, Peripheries, and Excluded

Bodies, Routledge, Oxon, 2010, pp. 161-185.

VAUGHAN-WILLIAMS, Nick, “Protesting Against Citizenship”, Citizenship Studies,

Volume 9, nº2, 2005, pp. 167-179.

-

-

-

WALKER, R.B.J., “Lines of Insecurity: International, Imperial, Exceptional”, Security

Dialogue, Vol. 37, nº1, 2006, pp. 65-82.